Rumours and Stuff

[hineyrulz]

Fishing ?? I doubt even his closest family/friends would make that claim.

IMHO he isn't as terrible as some make out (I've had a couple of opposition fans heckle me about how bad he is) he has been knocked silly a few times this year.

If I was rating performances this year he wouldn't be in the top 50% of the class.

Just more confirmation that he's a troll.

 

[TheRam]

No shifting mate... like many others - based on info from my sources - I was predicting a 4 point penalty, but feeling calm about it. 4 points would hav ebeen a lot less disruptive than 12 points, no?

And there won't be a need to "spin" if Hayne backtracks to rugby league and signs with us. I'll still have the opinion that he comes across as an egotisitical money hungry "star" who injects himself inconsistently into our regular season games given his share of the salary cap - something I've commented on many times before he left us, and also while he's been away

Yeah so inconsistent that he collected TWO daily M's, was the star player for NSW virtually from the moment he pulled on the jumper, ended up the go to man in the Aussie team, in a team that initially ignored him with the spine being all QLDers, but even they couldn't ignore him forever, and overall stats at NRL level that no other player, including Thurston, could come close to, all done while mostly playing for the most consistently rotten playing roster in the NRL. Yeah what an overrated and inconsistent loser.

What can I say, dumb f**k haters gunna hate.

 

[84 Baby]

ended up the go to man in the Aussie team

And in the "wrong" position, albeit was really only 1 tournament where that was the case

What can I say, dumb f**k haters gunna hate.

Don't you do a lot of hating?

 

[ash411]

What can I say, dumb f**k haters gunna hate.

I'm not seeing a lot of people on here questioning Hayne's resume?

I just read the expended quote, and he does have a point... Hayne could be inconsistent game to game at club level, that he has a point about. Regardless of his rep accomplishments, because the Eels don't pay him to play origin or tests, it's about week in week out footy in the NRL.

 

[TheRam]

And in the "wrong" position, albeit was really only 1 tournament where that was the case



Don't you do a lot of hating?

Yes, but I do it with style and I'm right.

 

[TheRam]

I'm not seeing a lot of people on here questioning Hayne's resume?

I just read the expended quote, and he does have a point... Hayne could be inconsistent game to game at club level, that he has a point about. Regardless of his rep accomplishments, because the Eels don't pay him to play origin or tests, it's about week in week out footy in the NRL.

Every player has a quiet game here and there, but Hayne, inconsistent? Hardly. Look at what the guy has achieved and all in the worst team in the comp. I doubt even Smith or Thurston could of done what he has done.

 

[hineyrulz]

I'm not seeing a lot of people on here questioning Hayne's resume?

I just read the expended quote, and he does have a point... Hayne could be inconsistent game to game at club level, that he has a point about. Regardless of his rep accomplishments, because the Eels don't pay him to play origin or tests, it's about week in week out footy in the NRL.

Bit hard to be consistent playing behind a beaten pack most weeks and working with a spine that would make Stephen Hawking blush.

How good has the immortal Greg Inglis been going in an average team??? I'd love to have seen him or Slater play in a team as Rubbish as Hayne did the majority of his career.

 

[Gronk]

 

[Twizzle]

oh please don't give Bert a microhone

 

[T.S Quint]

It'd be really funny if it turned out that the other teams aren't actually cheating, but are just way better managed... wouldn't it?

That would be quite surprising and encouraging, actually.

 

[caylo]

Imo he's gutsy as hell, but his dummy-half service is killing our attacking momentum.

Agree, I hope Seg is available for next year. He is playing well at the moment

 

[oldmancraigy]

Personally I think anyone who reckons everyone else is cheating is absolutely off their head. Delusional. No doubt there are some dodgy dealings going on from time to time but honestly stability off the field does great things for the side on it. So many clubs are in a better position than us simply because they're in a better position than us.

I dunno, when ex-players make throwaway comments like 'but everyone else is doing it' on talkback radio, then you'd have to think that there is at least a little bit of support for the claim?

 

[Bazal]

I dunno, when ex-players make throwaway comments like 'but everyone else is doing it' on talkback radio, then you'd have to think that there is at least a little bit of support for the claim?

Why? Because someone on radio said so? Please....that's just about the most irrelevant piece of evidence I've seen anyone present during this whole mess.

Face it, we aren't as attractive a proposition for third party deals as the top clubs because our front office is the NRL equivalent of the government of a small African nation. It's not to say that other clubs are doing dodgy things here and there, but we are a basket case in terms of administration and that's why we can't match it with the best clubs, not because they're better at cheating than us

 

[Joshuatheeel]

Bit hard to be consistent playing behind a beaten pack most weeks and working with a spine that would make Stephen Hawking blush.

How good has the immortal Greg Inglis been going in an average team??? I'd love to have seen him or Slater play in a team as Rubbish as Hayne did the majority of his career.

Yep, when was the last player that won a Dally M player of the year award in a side that didn't make the finals ?

Not many can do that.

And Inglis is a great player, but he is no where near an immortal, some media really over rate him. If Hayne played like he has over the last two years, he would be all over the media for poor form.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Worth more? Yeah that'd be fantastic. Cost more? Not so good.

I understand some players are on overs and some are on unders, but for the purposes of discussion, let's assume these hypothetical players are being paid what they're worth. Alternately we can assume they're all paid 10% or 20% (or another number) overs. Let me know which you prefer.

I know a lot of teams will use 20 plus players a season

No, every team will use 25+ with most using 30.

but I believe teams are better off with a million dollar, genuine upper echelon player and a minimum wager than a $800k quite possibly overpaid player & two $180k backups.

Why is the $800k player more likely to be overpaid than the $1M player? And why do you think you'd have to pay $180k for a backup? $180k is a top 17 player. Most backups would be on much less than $120k (being minimum salary plus 50%).

In the end if your star player gets severely injured, is the quality difference between a $180k & a $80k player really going to make that much of an impact?

You think there's little difference between a guy worth $80k and another guy worth more than double that?!? I think you and I are having two different discussions here.

A one-off game is a very slim maybe, but then you've also spent $70k on non-guaranteed insurance for one game. What difference would that $70k have made across an entire season if it was paid into you're top 17?

As I said, your 18th 'best' player (the player who makes the 18th most appearances) will probably play at least a dozen games (an average of 12.6 last year, across all 16 teams). The player with the 19th most appearances last year averaged 11 games (almost half a season) and player 20 averaged 9.8 games last year, across all teams. That's a lot of football to entrust to a player on minimum salary.

Compared to the players who make an appearance or two through the season, it is pretty clear that not all backups are equal. Brian Smith said on his blog that it is a huge decision clubs make, how much they want to pay players outside their top 17. The obvious implication is that the answer isn't automatically to pay players 18-25 the minimum salary. Or it wouldn't be a huge decision. You are being far too simplistic in your analysis.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Why? Because someone on radio said so? Please....that's just about the most irrelevant piece of evidence I've seen anyone present during this whole mess.

Face it, we aren't as attractive a proposition for third party deals as the top clubs because our front office is the NRL equivalent of the government of a small African nation. It's not to say that other clubs are doing dodgy things here and there, but we are a basket case in terms of administration and that's why we can't match it with the best clubs, not because they're better at cheating than us

When someone who used to play the game (in recent history), says that 'everyone is doing it' (re: cheating on the 3rd party deals), surely it makes you stop and think 'how would they know'?
Most likely answer: they would know because they've been a recipient, and (still being close to 'the game') know that others are recipients.

Unless a board is moronic enough to tape their board meetings, I imagine that this is about as close to hard evidence as anyone can get on cheating the TPA system....

What the Storm and Dogs did is something else altogether isn't it?

Also, I agree we are a basket case, and most likely the fact that halfwits have run the joint for 30 years is the reason we were dumb enough to get caught?

 

[The Colonel]

When someone who used to play the game (in recent history), says that 'everyone is doing it' (re: cheating on the 3rd party deals), surely it makes you stop and think 'how would they know'?
Most likely answer: they would know because they've been a recipient, and (still being close to 'the game') know that others are recipients.

Unless a board is moronic enough to tape their board meetings, I imagine that this is about as close to hard evidence as anyone can get on cheating the TPA system....

What the Storm and Dogs did is something else altogether isn't it?

Also, I agree we are a basket case, and most likely the fact that halfwits have run the joint for 30 years is the reason we were dumb enough to get caught?

The teams that have been caught with "cap irregularities" have been caught because of a disgruntled ex-employee or board member. Pretty sure when Canberra was busted back in the nineties it was the same deal.

The Warriors self reported when the new owner took over.

The Titans, Cowboys and the Broncos have all been "investigated" for dodgy deals but they couldn't progress because there wasn't enough evidence.

I agree 100% that those that talk about "everyone doing it" that they are well aware as their managers would be squeezing out what ever they can get through simply suggesting in negotiations that "Team X" are happy to do it and we will go that way if you aren't. Teams are forced to play the game. Some are just better at it.

We were stupid. We deserved to be caught but for Greenberg to suggest that the same forensic investigation need not take place at every club because the system is clean is bullshit. They would rather have a team being labelled as going rogue than the whole competition being investigated.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Phil Gould also suggested others are at it. And he's still in the game. I can't be arsed digging it up.

 

[Gronk]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl...rss&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

SYDNEY Roosters coach Trent Robinson has indicated out-of-favour playmaker Jackson Hastings is set to leave the Tricolours after the NRL season.

Still contracted for 2017, Hastings, son of Roosters great Kevin, appeared to have a big future at the Roosters after the club opted not to re-sign James Maloney at the end of last year.

The Roosters had backed Hastings to be a long-term halves partner to Mitchell Pearce.

But Hastings has been in and out of Robinson’s underperforming side this season and spent the last month languishing in the under-20s, with Robinson preferring fellow youngster Connor Watson at five eighth alongside Pearce.

Jackson Hastings is on the outer at the Roosters. pic Mark EvansSource: News Corp Australia
“Jackson is playing 20s. He has been playing well. He is still spending time with us but we made a decision to have a look at Connor (Watson) at five-eighth and to see how he can play in that position,” Robinson said on Wednesday.

“I have been happy with Connor. I am still talking to Jackson about his game and watching his game.

“We will decide week-to-week on what we need but at the moment we feel Connor is our best option there.” The Roosters have recruited South Sydney premiership winning five-eighth Luke Keary for next season.

As a result Robinson said Hastings’ future at the club was under discussion.

“That is stuff that we are discussing with Jackson and his manager. He knows where the lay of the land is with us. He is still contracted for next year,” Robinson said.

“It is tough as far as the position goes but he is a quality player and he will have a future in the NRL.

Jackson Hastings is still discussing his future at the Roosters. Picture: Gregg PorteousSource: News Corp Australia
“We recruited Luke to play as a five-eighth and for Connor next year it will be a utility role (to start with) and hopefully he will push his way into a starting role.” Hastings has been linked to a return to his former club St George Illawarra.

 

[84 Baby]

I understand some players are on overs and some are on unders, but for the purposes of discussion, let's assume these hypothetical players are being paid what they're worth. Alternately we can assume they're all paid 10% or 20% (or another number) overs. Let me know which you prefer.

You're the one making up these rules, but in a way it makes zip difference. Let's take Ryan Morgan and Bevan French as the perfect example. In real world terms, who is being paid more? Whilst in terms of hypothetical value, who is worth more?
Overs & unders are an after the fact measurement. I bet some were thinking Guffo was on overs couple of games into season and have probably switched their opinion. But we're talking about spending future money so that becomes best guess on how a player will perform based on past performance.

No, every team will use 25+ with most using 30.

They could use 1000, can still only field 17 each week.

Why is the $800k player more likely to be overpaid than the $1M player? And why do you think you'd have to pay $180k for a backup? $180k is a top 17 player. Most backups would be on much less than $120k (being minimum salary plus 50%).

Your mill players are the obvious current crop of top players (Thurston, Cronk, dare I say Hayne, etc), the next tier (where $800k is) is harder to judge and less consistent in performance (e.g. do Norman or Maloney belong here? What about the Roosters/Souths star players), thus why higher chance of being overpaid. And 180/120k or 80001, my point was that I believe we are better putting money into top 17 rather than backups.

You think there's little difference between a guy worth $80k and another guy worth more than double that?!? I think you and I are having two different discussions here.

It's not just is the hypothetical $180k (or whatever) backup going to perform better than the $80k guy (because if he's not than it's a definite waste *cough* Ryan Morgan) recognising that they may be trying to replace a player being paid 5-10 more than them, but is that player going to perform better than if you had used that excess to improve your top 17 in the first place.

As I said, your 18th 'best' player (the player who makes the 18th most appearances) will probably play at least a dozen games (an average of 12.6 last year, across all 16 teams). The player with the 19th most appearances last year averaged 11 games (almost half a season) and player 20 averaged 9.8 games last year, across all teams. That's a lot of football to entrust to a player on minimum salary.

Compared to the players who make an appearance or two through the season, it is pretty clear that not all backups are equal. Brian Smith said on his blog that it is a huge decision clubs make, how much they want to pay players outside their top 17. The obvious implication is that the answer isn't automatically to pay players 18-25 the minimum salary. Or it wouldn't be a huge decision.

I do recognise that clubs will likely have to pay more than minimum to 8 backups, I just balk at your implication that having high paid players is bad for squad/cap balance. Given that the top 3 back ups will average 33.4 games between them out of the 408 games the club plays (17 players times 24 games) then that's less then 10% of games, it's not that much. It's not like each game is determined by the least valuable player. And then how many times is that 18/19/20th player starting from the bench? How many minutes are they playing?

You are being far too simplistic in your analysis.

You're simplistic. I wasn't analysing shit, just questioning